70 ( +1 | -1 )
I was just wondering about the relationship between the ratings here on gameknot and "real life" OTB rating... For those of you this applies to, is your "real life" rating about the same, higher, lower? Is the elo rating only really valid for comparing like with like, e.g. two gameknot players?
Also I play a lot of Blitz games.. I think it would be nice to have a separate rating system for these and perhaps generation of pgn at the end of each game, although I know there are problems to address with the rating idea like lost connections and stuff.. but the pgn thing could be very useful... I know it's still in beta anyway but just a thought :)
8 ( +1 | -1 )
My USCF rating is around 1350 and my gameknot rating is around 1580.
120 ( +1 | -1 )
I think the relationship between your rating here and your "real life" OTB rating depends very much on how you play here - do you spend more/less/the same time on each move that you do in OTB? And in CC chess, do you analyze the position much more carefully than in OTB, or do you just make quick moves?
I think many (most?) people, perhaps intermediate or better, do spend more time analyzing moves in CC chess, so if you move just like you do in OTB, and your opponent is more careful, then you're going to be beat by people that would be lower rated than you in "real life". Which means that your rating here will be lower than it is in OTB. If you do play more carefully here, and really use the extra time to analyze carefully, then I suspect you can play somewhat above your OTB level.
I myself dabble around 1600 here, but in the Chessbase's playchess server, in fast games, I've gotten a rating about a hundred points above that.
I think that that is probably because I occasionally do commit the sin of moving too fast, and not analyzing as thoroughly as I should here.
11 ( +1 | -1 )
My CC rating here is almost.....
exactly my US Chess Federation CC rating,
about 2150. They track very nicely. Chuck
10 ( +1 | -1 )
I'm about to get involved in tournament play and I have no idea what to expect rating-wise.
20 ( +1 | -1 )
I've never played a tournament game in my life. I hope to start soon, and likewise have no clue what my rating will be. On GK I don't spend more than about 2 minutes on a move.
11 ( +1 | -1 )
If you do not have a USCF......
OTB rating the match TD will probably enter
you in the <1600. It takes 20 games [I think]
to get an established rating.
177 ( +1 | -1 )
Some Info for UK (BCF) Ratings:
To help you in converting ratings, this is the formula I've been told for converting a FIDE Elo rating to a British Chess F. rating in the UK. Take the FIDE otb Elo rating and subtact 600, then take the remainder and divide it by 8. So for EG 2000 FIDE minus 600 = 1400 divided by 8 = 175. OR BCF of 150 x8 = 1200 + 600 = 1800 in FIDE. (Just FYI a FIDE MASTER rating of 2200 = 200 BCF)
Comparing USCF Elo to Fide Elo ... I don't know of any conversion. The USCF rating used to be a bit inflationary compared to FIDE back in the 1970's and 80's due to USCF using a Bonus Point calculation for persons having an exceptional tournament result. So for EG Fischers USCF around 2800 was a bit over 2700 in FIDE. And many players would be 50-100 points higher rated in USCF then. Then USCF stopped the Bonus points. If that is still true, then perhaps they are more parallel now?! (anyone know?)
Some USCF tournaments are also FIDE tournaments and rated under both. Some are just one or the other. So they are not fully rating the same events. And that would vary them to each other also.
Comparing to GK ratings?! Hard to compare since this is Correspondence Style play, and more like unto Postal than to OTB play. Some players can be 100's of points better or worse at one or the other.
In purely objective strength of the play in a game, any corr type game is going to be maybe 100 to 400 points stronger play, IMO. For EG, a postal game played by a 2000 rated in postal may have moves as strong as a player rated 2100 to 2400 may make when playing OTB Chess. All very subjective however.
And this is just my opinion based upon my experience and games/results I've seen over a couple or few decades. }8-)
132 ( +1 | -1 )
I think one is comparing apples to oranges when comparing ratings here to OTB.
A lot depends on what you use the site for. I use it to mainly play thematic mini-tournaments involving openings I want to get some work on before playing them over the board. Because I use this site for experimentation, rather than say, playing the French Defense 300 times to jack up my gameknot rating, would also explain why I'm only around 1700 here, and 2000 over the board. Same thing goes for sites like ICC, where my Blitz rating is only about 1650. Part of that is, again, experimentation. For example: I have played a good number of games on ICC with 1.e4 c5 2.a3 as White, but not until today have I used it over the board, and low and behold, after many losses on ICC, I won today in only 26 moves.
Other players have ratings of a good 200 or so higher on here. They play their pet lines, and win all the time for various reasons, whether it be that the opponent is experimenting with openings (as is the case with me), moves too quickly, doesn't care about results, or one of many other reasons.
Therefore, I don't think there is any valid comparison between gameknot ratings, ICC ratings (or any other internet chess site that is not correspondence), and OTB ratings.
19 ( +1 | -1 )
I will say again that my USCF...
CC rating matches very well with GK
CC means Correspondence Chess.
You cannot compare any CC rating with an
OTB rating. They are two distinctly different
forms of the game.
9 ( +1 | -1 )
Apples and Oranges
I suppose it is fair to say there is no valid relationship then... at least not to OTB.. thanks for the input!
12 ( +1 | -1 )
apples and oranges
However, I don't think that a 1000 rated GK or CC player could be 2000, or even 1500 OTB (and vice versa).
46 ( +1 | -1 )
Why not umpito?
Just look at the OTB (~1750) and GK (~2420) rating of the top seeded player of this site. So you can't compare those two types of play.
A 2000 OTB player could however hardly be 1000-1500 GK here unless spending less than one second on each move.
Average OTB player (1700-1900) can "easily" be much higher rated here at GK, just question of how much time he spend on each game.
151 ( +1 | -1 )
gameknot ,OTB, and blitz
I have noticed my gameknot rating is almost always higher than my OTB rating. Also, interestingly my blitz rating(playchess.com) is almost always higher than my OTB rating. In fact, there is a high correlation between my gameknot rating and my bltz rating.
It seems to me this indicates there must be something in common between gameknot and blitz games that is absent in OTB. The most obvious is the timeout/disconnection factor. On gameknot you can win a lot of games just be making your move on time. This does not happen at OTB. Someone flag can fall in OTB but this usually happens because the position is difficult..not because they fail to show up. So, I feel you can get some free points just by playing online.
But the amount of points gained this way is probably minimal. So there is probably something more. I think one thing is it is easier to get a game against weaker opposition online. You can play weak opposition all day and slowly gain rating points. In OTB the opportunity to play weaker opponents is rare. For one thing, most people play in class competitions where they never play anyone weaker than 200 points below them. So to gain rating points over the long term they actually have to play their best chess. Those who play in open tournaments do get to play weaker opponents sometimes but they also have to play much stronger oppposition...so it balances off.
62 ( +1 | -1 )
I think one reads too much into the time spent on a game factor. Style of play can be an explanation of the delta between CC and OTB, due to unsound sacrifices / attacks being punished more readily, one does not speculate to accumulate in CC. However the delta should not be too large as when large deltas exist they span quantum jumps in the level of chess understanding, at the end of the day if a 1600 player (average competitive club player here) spends 7 x 24hrs looking at a complex position he will obtain less understanding of the position than a 2200 will get in several minutes, or a IGM will get in a second or two.
8 ( +1 | -1 )
for me 1208 ELO = 1620 GK
I odnt play so great under time pressure OTB.
98 ( +1 | -1 )
My OTB USCF rating
is much lower than my GK rating. But it isn't my abilility to play under time pressure that's the main issue. My problem is a recurring failure when calculating to carefully check the resulting position after a sequence of moves. Too often there's been a subtle change in position that allows a shot by my opponent that I didn't anticipate. It happens to me enough make a real difference in my rating.
Just last weekend, I was in the final game of a class tournament, competing for first place and was a piece up. I calculated a series of moves that I thought would win a rook for a bishop, not recognizing that when he captured the bishop his piece would be in a position to block my rook-winning check. The result was the loss of my piece advantage and a draw - and I finished in third place, out of the money.
That doesn't happen at GK, of course, because I play out the sequences on the board and it's clear immediately which ones work and which ones don't. ws
16 ( +1 | -1 )
My ratings vary
USCF i think i'm around 850.
Here i'm 1214.
At Yahoo I'm 1372.
At Pogo I'm 1480.
And at Instant Chess I'm around 1050.
Amazing how ratings change.
22 ( +1 | -1 )
I think in general.....
your CC rating will be higher than your
OTB rating. In CC since you have
the time, the ability to reference openings
and a lot less presure you are apt to make far
fewer mistakes than you would make in OTB.
190 ( +1 | -1 )
I don't think I read to much into the time spent on a game factor. High ranked players, specially IGM have much greater tactical/positional understanding than average club players, but in the end calculations are needed! I think your claim that "...1600 player (average competitive club player here) spends 7 x 24hrs looking at a complex position he will obtain less understanding of the position than a 2200 will get in several minutes, or a IGM will get in a second or two." is simply wrong. You are giving to much weight to the "deep understanding of chess" of high ranked masters or IGMs. Without calculations this "understanding" is not worth too much. And this is f.e exactly the reason why average/good club players can fancy their chances even against high ranked grandmasters in simul games.
Many years back I did drew against GM Sergy Dolmatov in a 16 player simul. At that time he was ranked nr. 5 or 6 in the world, I was then a around 1900 player. In a normal game I would of course not had any change, but the few minutes I got while he was playing on the other tables did level the situation.
This is why an average OTB player can gain much higher ratings in CC (like f.e mateintwo). Time well spent on every game can easily level the situation against much higher ranked OTB player if he's not putting to much effort into his CC games.
I've lost some games here against players rated even 500 points less than me. But I've then simply reconized that I did not put enough effort into these games, and all merit to my opponent that obviously spent necessary time to beat me fair and square.
Apart from this, I think in general players are always thinking to much of their ratings, who cares, just enjoy the game!
All the best
8 ( +1 | -1 )
Only if you are good at thinking.
*looks at 2100OTB*
*looks at 1700GK*
65 ( +1 | -1 )
You should not play correspondence chess
like OTB. If you do you will lose moreso than if
you use the time you have allowed. Also, in
CC [correspondence chess] venues you are
allowed to consult with opening books, databases
etc etc. If you do not you will lose moreso than if
CC is a totally different venue than OTB. You
probably know all of this already.
I notice on your profile that you take 2 mins
or so for your move average so from that
I conclude you do move along pretty fast.
Maybe that is how you enjoy to play the
game and if so then keep playing that way.
Enjoyment of the game is the most important
10 ( +1 | -1 )
I'm a little over 1900 USCF.. But not even 1600 on here.. Is something wrong here?
234 ( +1 | -1 )
There seem to be quite a bit of difference in OTB rating and the rating here with some people... I don't have an official rating (As I've only played on the internet, and OTB informally with friends), but these posts have made me curious. Maybe I'll have to join a local chess club and see how good/bad I really am. :) I kinda miss the exitement of playing OTB anyway, since my friends haven't kept up with my chess obsession, and aren't much of a challenge for me anymore.
Still, I think a 1900 player being below 1600 here seems a bit odd - though of course many factors play into your correspondence rating that don't come into play OTB. If you use databases, and study the positions using the board analysis feature (eliminating the need of strong visual memory to calculate long tactical lines), then I expect that your level of play is higher than OTB. That would mean that any players who did not take advantage of these possibilities would tend to do worse in correspondence chess than in OTB.
Potentially, someone at 1500 - 1600 in OTB could posess a great deal of theoretical knowledge and positional understanding, but have weaknesses in the tactics department due to sub par visualization skills. That player could do much better than their rating in correspondence chess, where they can try out various lines on a side board before committing to them in game. Their theoretical knowledge could then allow them to rise well above their OTB level.
Also, maybe it works vice versa too - maybe a strong OTB player whose main strength is a tallent for long tactical calculations and visualization, but whose theoretical knowledge and positional skills aren't quite up to speed with their tactics, maybe that player would suffer in CC, because in the area of pure calculation, the plaing field may be leveled by the availability of a side board to supplement visual memory.
Of couse, there's the possibility of the playing field being distorted by computer users, but I personally don't worry about that - if someone is using a computer against me, then at least I'm getting good practice, whereas my opponent is getting nothing but a rating that he can't match up to in skill.
16 ( +1 | -1 )
My Uscf Rating is 952(but have played a tournament since), But that 952 is underted ability wise I am about 1200 ability wise and 1250(+/-) here